A Review On Maize-Legume Intercropping For Enhancing The Productivity and Soil Fertility For Sustainable Agriculture in India

Advances in Environmental Biology, 11(5) May 2017, Pages: 49-63
AENSI Journals
Advances in Environmental Biology

ISSN-1995-0756 EISSN-1998-1066
Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/AEB/
A Review On Maize- Legume Intercropping For

Enhancing The Productivity And Soil Fertility For
Sustainable Agriculture In India
1T. Ananthi and 2M. Mohamed Amanullah, 3Abdel Rahman Mohammad Said Al-Tawaha
1
Post Doctoral Fellow (UGC), Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore- 641 003, Tamil Nadu, India.
2
Professor (Agronomy), Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore- 641 003, Tamil Nadu, India.
3
Professor (Plant Physiology), Department of Biological Sciences, Al Hussein Bin Talal University, Ma’an, P.O. Box 20, Jordan.
Address For Correspondence:

T. Ananthi, Post Doctoral Fellow (UGC), Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore- 641 003, Tamil
Nadu, India.
E-mail: ananthu12@gmail.com
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Received 8 January 2017; Accepted 28 April 2017; Available online 24 May 2017
ABSTRACT
The availability of land for agriculture is shrinking every day as it is increasingly utilized for non-agricultural purposes. World population is
growing exponentially and it has to fulfill their food requirements. Under this situation, one of the important strategies to increase
agricultural output is the development of new high intensity cropping systems including intercropping systems. Intercropping is a type of
mixed cropping and defined as the agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops in the same space at the same time. It increases in
productivity per unit of land via better utilization of resources, minimizes the risks, reduces weed competition and stabilizes the yield.
Several factors influence the intercropping such as maturity of crop, selection of compatible crop, planting density, time of planting as well
as socio economic status of farmers and the region. In intercropping, land is effectively utilized and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) is used to
measure the productivity of land. Legume intercropping systems play a significant role in the efficient utilization of resources. Maize has
reorganized as a component crop in most intercropping. Cereal-legume intercropping is a more productive and profitable cropping system in
comparison with solitary cropping. Maize-legume intercropping systems are able to lessen amount of nutrients taken from the soil in
comparison to maize. Moreover, intercropping improves soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation from atmosphere (150 tons/year)
with the use of legumes, increases soil conservation through greater ground cover than sole cropping. In this study, the work carried out by
various researches in maize based intercropping are discussed. This work would be useful to the researchers who involves in this field.
KEYWORDS: Maize, Growth, Yield, Light interception, Nutrient use efficiency, Weed management, Nutrient transfer
INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most versatile emerging crops having wider adaptability under varied agro-
climatic conditions. Globally, maize is known as queen of cereals because it has the highest genetic yield potential
among the cereals. Maize is cultivated throughout the world (58°N latitude to 40°S latitude) in an area of 179.9 m.ha
across 165 countries with a production of 1013.6 m.t and average productivity of 5.63 t/ha. It is largely grown in
USA, China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico etc. The highest productivity of 10.73 t/ha was achieved in United States,
which was followed by China (5.81 t/ha) and Brazil (5.4 t/ha). India occupies 7th position in respect of area and
production [1].
In India, maize is the third most important food crops after rice and wheat. Maize is cultivated in an area of 9.3
million hectares with a production of 24.2 million tonnes and productivity of 2564 kg ha -1 [2]. The major maize
producing states are Andhra Pradesh (20%), Karnataka (17%), Maharashtra (11%), Bihar (9%), Tamil Nadu
Copyright © 2017 by authors and Copyright, American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information (AENSI Publication).
50 T. Ananthi et al, 2017
(8%), Madhya Pradesh (6%), Rajasthan (6%) and Uttar Pradesh (5%). The area and production of maize has
increased remarkably from1950-’51 to 2014-’15. As a result of recent technological interventions adopted by
the farming community, the productivity has significantly increased to the tune of 368.7 per cent from 1950-’51
to 2014-’15.
In Tamil Nadu, maize is cultivated in an area of 3.4 million hectares with a production of 18.30 million
tonnes and the productivity is 5359 kg ha-1 [3]. In Tamil Nadu, maize is grown in an area of 0.1 lakh ha during
1970-71 with an annual production of 0.2 lakh tonnes, mainly concentrated in Tanjavur, Pudukkottai and Trichy
districts. Due to rapid increase in the demand of maize for poultry and animal feed and for industrial uses, and
popularization of high yielding varieties and hybrids, the area under maize has increased to 3.4 lakh ha with a
production of 18.3 lac t during 2014 - 15. The major maize growing districts are Perambalur, Toothukudi,
Dindigul, Erode, Karur, Ariyalur and Salem and smaller area in Southern districts of Tamil Nadu.
Maize is one of the oldest human-cultivated crops grown in tropical and temperate regions of the world.
The center of origin is believed to be the Mesoamerica region, at least 7000 years ago when it was grown as a
wild grass called teosinte in the Mexican highlands [4]. Despite its high yield potential, it is giving low yields
because of improper fertilizer management practices due to lack of appropriate information on fertilizer
management and bio fertilizer application. Increasing productivity per unit area through agronomic management
is one of the important strategies to increase the production of maize.
The importance of cereal grains in human nutrition is widely recognized, as they provide substantial
amounts of energy and protein to millions people, especially in developing countries [5].
Intercropping is a common cropping system in developing countries such as India
[6]. It is the practice of growing two or more crops at the same time during the same growing season on the
same piece of land [7]. With the rapid population increase, the demand for food has been increasing while land
availability has been declining. Thus, the only way to increase agricultural production is to increase yield per
unit area [8].
In tropical regions, corn has been considered as the best component in most of intercropping system [9].
Intercropping has recently been recognized as a potentially beneficial system of crop production [10]. This
cropping system increased total productivity per unit land, per unit time and improves the judicious utilization of
the land and other resources on farm [10] reduces soil erosion and thereby helps to maintain greater stability in
crop yield in okra/cowpea intercropping system [11].
Other advantages of intercropping include: insurance against crop failure thereby minimizing risk, better
use of resources by plants of different heights, rooting depths and nutrient requirements and a more equal
distribution of labour through the growing season [12] & [13]. Moreover, intercropping systems more efficiently
used the growth factors because they capture more radiation and make better use of the available water and
nutrients, reduce pests, diseases incidence and suppress weeds [14] and favour soil-physical conditions,
particularly intercropping cereal and legume crops which also maintain and improve soil fertility [15].
Several scientists have been working with cereal- legume intercropping systems and proved its success
compared to the monocrops [16] Some studies have indicated that intercropping was more productive than sole
cropping because of the complimentary effect of intercrops such studies included amaranth with cowpea,
cucumber with cowpea [11], maize with cowpea [16] and cassava with cowpea [17]
2. Intercropping system and its importance:

Intercropping is an age old practice of growing simultaneously two or more crops on the same field such
that the period of overlap is long enough to include vegetative stage [18]. Intercropping has been a regular
practice followed by the farmers of India, Africa, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Intercropping is mainly practiced to
cover the risk of failure of one of the component crops due to vagaries of weather or pest and disease incidence.
Yield advantages in intercropping system are mainly because of differential use of growth resources by
component crops. The complementarity will occur when the growth patterns of component crops differ in time
[19].
Intercropping of legumes in association with non-legumes helps in utilization of nitrogen being fixed by
legumes in the current growing season, but also helps in residual build up of nutrients in soil [20]. Best
utilization of nutrients, moisture, space and solar energy can be derived through mixed/intercropping system.
According to [21] intercropping not only stabilizes crop production by reducing the impact of weather vagaries,
but also increases cropping intensity considerably.
According to [22] crops having differing growth stages, pattern and duration, avoidance of competition for
resources at peak stages in general make a suitable component crop for intercropping with pigeonpea.
Moreover, plant types differing in height, branching habit, canopy cover and crop duration decide the
suitability for intercropping system. Intercropping is one of the preferred ways to increase productivity and
intensify land use and also reduce the amount of herbicides and fertilizers applied [23]. The main aim of
intercropping is to augment the total productivity per unit area and time, besides judicious and equitable
utilization of land resources and farming inputs including labour etc., [24].
Intercropping practices have some benefits such as improving yield [25] & [26]. \and increasing biological
activities in the soil, and decreasing pests [27]. A number of indices such as LER, crop combination ratio, real
yield loss, financial advantage, and intercropping benefits have been proposed to describe competition within
and economic advantages of intercropping systems [28] & [29].
According to [30] LER was superior in all intercrops implying that the productivity of corn-soybean
intercropping has a higher RY advantage over sole cropping under the additive intercropping system.
3. Effect of intercropping on maize:

3.1. Growth and growth components:
An intercrop is generally grown to make best use of interspace which is not fully utilized by main crop in early
growth periods. The intercrop may reduce or increase the yield of main crop, depending upon the species and spatial
arrangement of component crops.
According to [31] found that there was drastic reduction in maize plant height, leaf area index in association
with sunflower in 4:2 ratio. Among the treatment combinations, maize + greengram in 4:2 ratio recorded higher
plant height and leaf area index. This was mainly due to complementary effect between base crop and intercrop.
Greengram was a short statured crop and grew about 1/3 of the plant height of base crop maize and offered
lesser resistance for maize growth.
A study at Faisalabad in which the maximum LAI (8.75), LAD (262.7 days) and CGR (15.04 g m ·2 d·1)
were recorded for cowpea grown in alternate rows of maize followed by cluster bean (LAI 8.14, LAD 244.3
days and CGR of 13.52 gm·2 d-1) grown in alternate rows with maize which was significantly greater than rice
bean seeded in alternate rows with forage maize [32].
According to [33] in monoculture, maize yield per plant increased as planting density decreased from 100 000
to 50 000 plants ha−1. At a density of 50 000 maize plants ha−1, both dry weight yield per plant and shoot N
concentrations of maize were greater when intercropped with 50 000 Type III (bush-type) bean plants ha−1 than in
monoculture (196.4 g plant−1 and 167.0 g plant−1; 21.6 g N kg−1 dry mass and 17.4 g N kg−1 dry mass, respectively),
but intercropping Type IV (climbing) beans at this density combination had no effects on either maize plant
weight or shoot N concentration.
The results of a field study conducted at Faisalabad revealed that the cultivation of maize alone with full
dose of nitrogen showed the maximum height (216.5cm), which was followed by maize intercropped with
cowpea and N at 225 kg ha-1 having plant height of 213.7 cm [34].
A field study to investigate the effect of cropping systems and N-fertilization on growth of corn and peanut
grown in sole and inter-cropping systems. Results revealed that significant increase in plant height (190.93 cm) and
LAI (2.26) were achieved when corn and peanut were intercropped in alternated furrows (2:1) with 80 kg ha -1
urea [35].
A field experiment was conducted in Brazil to evaluate the influence of intercropping and row spacing on
maize yield. Plant height, height of first ear, and number of grains ear -1 were higher with the narrow row
spacing. Maize grain yield was similar in both crop management types (10 301 and 9745 kg ha–1 for
monoculture maize and intercropped, respectively) [36].
According to [37] intercropping reduced the number of leaves per plant (5.11) and increased the height of
okra plants (77.17 cm) irrespective of the manure rates which could possibly be attributed to the adequate
nutrient supply that encouraged plant growth.
3.2. Yield and yield attributes:

According to [38] & [39] concluded from their studies that intercropping of soybean with maize did not
reduce yields compared to maize alone. The plant height and days to maturity of maize in intercropping and sole
cropping systems was not affected significantly.
Intercropping of maize with urdbean significantly increased the grain yield of maize compared to sole
maize grown both in normal row planting and paired row planting [40]. Intercropping of legumes viz., soybean,
cowpea, frenchbean and urdbean with maize at varying levels of NPK to legume components revealed that
application of 50 % recommended dose of NPK to legume component was statistically on par with 100 %
fertilizers. On an average, available soil N at harvest in intercropping system was higher by 30 kg N ha-1, maize
equivalent yield by 15 to 20 q ha-1 and LER by 30 to 37 % as compared to sole stand [41].
Higher maize grain equivalents were recorded with maize + soyabean whereas maximum grain yield of 32.48
q ha-1 was recorded in maize + mashbean system [42]. Nitrogen application to intercropping systems improved
growth, yield, yield components, maize equivalents and remunerative benefits in maize + legumes.
According to [43] sole maize was significantly superior to maize + cowpea and maize + okra intercropping
treatments in respect of green cob and stover yield. However, the highest values of maize equivalent yield were
associated with maize + cowpea which were significantly superior to maize + okra and sole maize. According to
[44] the highest yield was achieved from sole maize compared to its combination with groundnut and soybean
and same results were noticed in case of sole groundnut. Crop competition was possibly the main reason for
reduction in yields.
According to [45] the maize-legume intercropping was studied to see the effect of legume on maize
productivity grown in different geometrical patterns. The treatments tried were sole maize, maize + blackgram,
maize + mungbean and maize + cowpea at different planting patterns, i.e. P1=90 cm apart double row strips (80/90
cm) and P2=120 cm apart triple row strips (80/120 cm). Maize grain yield was significantly greater in sole maize
compared to other treatment combinations; while maize + cowpea intercropping gave minimum yield. Maize
grown under P1 provided the maximum yield of 39.38 q ha-1.
Alternate planting combinations of maize (Zea mays L.) with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or
cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) were compared with the solitary planting of each crop under the East Mediterranean
conditions in Turkey. The highest maize seed yield was obtained from 1- row 67 maize: 50 cowpea mixture
while the lowest one was from 2-row 100 maize:50 cowpea mixture. The highest legume seed yield was from
sole planting and the lowest one was from 2-row 100 maize: 50 cowpea mixture [46]. According to [47] the
intercropped treatments, four rows groundnut in between paired rows of hybrid maize var. Pacific-11 showed
higher maize equivalent yield (15.34 t ha-1), groundnut equivalent yield (4.91 t ha -1), and land equivalent ratio
(1.66) as compared to other treatments.
The results of a study conducted at Nigeria showed that higher grain yield was obtained from sole cropping
plots while intercropped plots at mix proportion of 100 Maize: 100 Cowpea gave higher intercrop total grain
yield of 2.81 t ha-1. The highest intercropped maize yield was from 1 Maize:1 Cowpea plots with mix-proportion
of 50 Maize:50 Cowpea while the highest intercropped cowpea grain yield was obtained from 100 Maize:100
Cowpea plots [48].
According to [49] intercropping of maize and peanut in different planting ratios significantly affected the
yield. The highest dry biological yield of maize (57 t ha -1) was obtained by sowing the crops in intercrop of
maize 75 % + peanut 25 %. The highest grain yield (10.0 t ha -1) of maize was recorded from sole maize (100 %
maize + 0 % peanut) and the highest dry biological yield for peanut (7.4 t ha -1) was recorded from intercrop of
maize 50 % + peanut 50 %. Increase in grain yield of maize under sole cropping in maize-okra intercrop [50].
The combined yields of green maize and beans in the intercropped system were better than the sole yield of
either of the two crops [51].
According to [52] simultaneous sowing of maize + fodder cowpea at 1:1 row proportion recorded
significantly higher grain yield (5349 kg ha-1) and stover yield (7581 kg ha-1) over all other intercropping
treatments except, maize sown after 1 week at 1:1 row proportion. The results are confirmed with the findings of
[53] & [54].
According to [55] the green ear yield and total dry biomass of maize were significantly affected by nutrient
management, but not by the intercropping system. This shows that the presence of soybean did not adversely
affect the growth of maize. The present result is supported by that of [56] non-significant difference between
monocropped maize and intercropped maize with soybean on yield and yield components.
3.3. Effect of intercropping on light interception/light transmission ratio:

According to [57] the two ratios viz., 2:2 or 4:2 of soybeans cv. Crawford intercropped with maize cv.
Giza-2, 4:2 ratio received more light than 2:2 ratio. The alternate paired row spatial arrangement of maize-
soybean intercropping system provided more light to soybean without declining the desired utilization for the
light [58].
According to [59] minimum light transmission of 3.8 % was recorded under sorghum + fodder cowpea. The
intercrop (fodder cowpea) of sorghum without fertilizer filtered maximum light of 54.6 % to the ground.
Two factors that affect yield in relation to incident radiation in an intercropping system are the total amount
of light intercepted and the efficiency with which intercepted light is converted to dry matter [60]. For instance,
according to [61] the radiation intercepted was higher in maize-bean intercropping than of the sole crop.
Intercropped bean with maize had 77 percent higher RUE than sole-cropped beans [62]. According to [63]
maize – soybean intercropping had better use of solar radiation over the monocrops.
According to [64] sole soybean was very effective at intercepting light, f being 0.99 from 84 DAS
onwards, whilst sole maize intercepted an average of 0.79 of incident photosynthetic photon flux density during
the season. However, the canopy of sole soybean was less effective at intercepting light early in the season, f
being 0.41 at 56 DAS.
With respect to [65] the percentage of PAR interception was significantly (P≤ 0/05) affected by cropping
system over sampling dates. At 55 days after sowing (DAS) the percentage of PAR interception by sole cropped
cowpea and intercrops were not significantly different, with the lowest PAR reception being recorded by sole
cropped corn. At 70 DAS, the percentage of PAR interception by intercrops treatments were significantly (P≤
0/05) greater than either sole crop. PAR interception by sole cropped cowpea was significantly greater than that
of sole cropped corn at 70 DAS.
Intercropping high and low canopy crops is to improve light interception and hence yields of the shorter
crops which have to be planted between sufficiently wider rows of the taller ones [66]. According to [67] the
MBILI (modified intercropping) system increased maize and legume yields through higher light penetration.
Percentage of solar radiation interception was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by various intercropping
with different row proportion. The higher solar radiation interception was recorded on 1:5 maize + cowpea
intercropping followed by 1:5 maize + cowpea over sole maize. However, the interception recorded was higher
on all 1:5 crop combinations followed by 1:2 and 1:1. Along with this, the solar radiation interception was
higher at 75 DAS over 50 DAS [68].
According to [69] the mean of PAR interception averaged over sampling dates by intercrop treatments was
significantly (P<0.05) higher than that for sole crop systems. The mean percentage of PAR interception for
intercrop treatments
with additive design was also higher than that for intercropping with replacement design and sole maize. The
mean PAR interception averaged over cropping system increased upto 85 DAS and then, declined.
The maize sown after 3 weeks at 1:2 row proportion recorded significantly lower (Light Transmission Ratio
(LTR) (9.15 %) and higher light absorption (90.8%) compared to all other intercropping treatments [70].
3.4. Effect of intercropping on nutrient use efficiency:

Increased nutrient uptake in intercropping systems can occur spatially and temporally. Spatial nutrient
uptake can be increased through the increasing root mass, while temporal advantages in nutrient uptake occur
when crops in an intercropping system have peak nutrient demands at different times [71]. In the species that
have different rooting and uptake patterns, such as cereal/legume intercropping system, more efficient use of
available nutrients may occur and higher N-uptake in the intercrop have been reported, compared monocrops
[72].
According to [73] the acquisition of P by the legume was markedly greater than that by the grass, regardless
of the P form being inorganic or organic. The results indicate that wheat is less able to use organic P than inorganic P,
whereas chickpea is able to use both P sources equally effectively. When wheat and chickpea were grown together,
the following may have happened. Firstly, chickpea can mobilize and absorb some organic P by releasing phosphatase
into soil, and also leave some inorganic P for wheat. Secondly, wheat with a greater competitive ability acquires more
P from the root zone of both wheat and chickpea, resulting in P depletion in the chickpea rhizosphere [74].
Nitrogen uptake by intercropping of wheat and maize was greater than that by corresponding sole cropping
under same supply [75]. According to [76] sole sorghum recorded higher nitrogen (75.7 kg/ha), phosphorus
(18.8 kg/ha) and potassium (50.1 kg/ha) uptake than single intercropping with redgram and double intercropping
either with redgram + soybean or redgram + coriander systems. According to [77] in a field experiment consisting
intercropping of pearl millet with pigeonpea and castor reported that the N and P uptake by pearl millet was
significantly influenced by cropping systems. The N and P uptake was maximum with sole pearl millet as compared
to intercropping with pigeonpea and castor.
According to [78] an experiment consisting intercropping of maize + groundnut in different row proportions
reported that maize + groundnut in 2:2 row proportion resulted in higher uptake of NPK than maize + groundnut in
1:1 row proportion.
Some studies conducted outside the Sub-Saharan Africa region have proven the comparative efficiency of
intercrops to monocrops. For instance, maize and cowpea intercropping is beneficial on nitrogen poor soils [79].
According to [80] maize-cowpea intercropping increase the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents
compared to monocrops of maize.
Despite the beneficial effects of the intercropping to the cereal crops, it may also accelerate soil nutrient
depletion, particularly for phosphorous, due to more efficient use of soil nutrients and higher removal through
the harvested crops [81]. However, according to [82] maize intercropped with soybean produced significantly
lower NPK depletion and higher N uptake. Recent efforts on replenishment of soil fertility in Africa have been
through the introduction of legumes as intercrop and/or in rotation to minimize external inputs [83].
According to [84] all soil nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium)
were low before the onset of experimentation and were largest in the maize-soybean intercropped plot compared
to the quantities recorded in pure maize plot.
3.5. Effect of intercropping on weed management:

It is often believed that traditional intercropping systems are better in weeds, pests and diseases control
compared to the monocrops, but it must be known that intercropping is an almost infinitely variable, and often
complex, system in which adverse effects can also occur.
Intercropping of cereals and cowpea has been observed to reduce striga infestation significantly [85]. This
was attributed to the soil cover of cowpea that created unfavorable conditions for striga germination [86].
According to [87] maize-bean intercropping reduced weed biomass by 50-66 % when established at a density of
2,22,000 plants ha-1 for beans equivalent to 33 % of the maize density (37,000 plants ha-1).
Field experiment was conducted at Udaipur to evaluate the uptake of major primary nutrients by maize
legume intercropping system under the influence of weed control. Results revealed that maize + cowpea and
maize + soybean were at par with each other during both years and found statistically superior over maize +
blackgram, maize + green gram and sole maize in reducing monocot, dicot and total weed dry matter.
On mean basis maize + cowpea and maize + soybean reduced the monocot, dicot and total weed dry matter by
33.4 and 37.5; 32.2 and 37.4 and 33.2 and 37.5% , respectively, compared to weed check [88].
According to [89] intercropping of cowpea and French bean reduced the weed population and weed dry
weight significantly than sole cropping and maize + coriander intercropping system. Maize + frenchbean (1:2)
showed the highest MEY and productivity and maize + cowpea (1:5) recorded the lowest weed count and weed
dry weight and the highest weed control efficiency.
According to [90] weed dry weight recorded at all the stages of crop growth was significantly influenced by
different intercropping systems and it was reduced under the intercropping of maize with soybean and
greengram, while it was higher with maize sown as sole crop. Weed smothering efficiency (%) calculated at
20 and 45 DAS and at harvest clearly indicated that intercropping of maize with soybean registered higher weed
smothering efficiency (WSE) than maize with greengram.
A study conducted at Agricultural University Peshawar indicated that maize intercropping with soybean
and mungbean in different combinations significantly affected weed density (m-2). The maximum number of
weeds (166.3 m-2) were recorded in control (weedy check) plots followed by plots where maize was
intercropped with one row of mungbean seeded simultaneously (136 m -2) which was statistically at same level
with all treatments except maize hand weeded (45 m-2), sole maize (83 m-2) and maize intercropped with two
rows of mungbean simultaneously seeded in which lower number of weeds were recorded [91].
The results of the field study conducted by [92] at Nigeria revealed that weed biomass in sole cropping
pattern of okra was significantly greater than in intercropping pattern with maize and pepper. The sole okra
cropping pattern (control) had the highest weed biomass (330.23 gm-2). The mixed intercropping pattern had the
least weed biomass of 185.2 gm-2. Weed smother efficiency (WSE) was the highest in mixed pattern in both
years compared to the other forms of intercrop pattern.
According to [93] lower density of sedges (19.72/m2) and weed dry matter (18.93 g/m2) were recorded in
maize intercropping with cowpea and application of pendimethalin at 1.0 kg/ha as pre emergence. The lowest
weed density and weed fresh biomass (24.45 m-2 and 1100 kg ha-1, respectively) were recorded in 10 rows
mungbean + 6 rows maize and highest weed density (36.88 m-2) and weed fresh biomass (2389 kg ha-1) were
found in sole maize treatments [94].
3.6. Evaluation of intercropping systems:

Among crop mixtures land equivalent ratio (LER) is used for estmating advantages or disadvantage of crop
mixture over sole cropping systems [95]. There are different competition functions like actual yield loss (AYL),
land equivalent ratio (LER), competitive ratio (CR), relative crowding coefficient , intercropping advantage and
monetary advantage index for evaluation of system efficiency and financial benefits of intercropping systems
[96]. For maize + bean intercropping, these indices have not been used to find out the economic advantages,
resource use efficiency and competition among species of intercropping system. Intercropping in cassava was
beneficial in increasing the biological yield, tuber equivalent yield and land use efficiency. Cassava tuber
equivalent yield, LER, ATER and AHER were higher in cassava + cowpea combinations compared to
respective sole cropping [97]. According to [98] & [99] also recorded higher LER in maize based intercropping
systems compared to respective sole cropping.
According to [100] an experiment was conducted to determine whether intercropping increased production
for small scale farming in a semi-arid region (Freestate, South Africa). Crop productivity of maize and bean
intercropping systems was evaluated in terms of crop yield and growth. The total LER for yield and growth ranged
between 1.06 to 1.58 and 1.38 to 1.86, respectively showing yield and growth advantage of intercropping.
Maximum land equivalent ratio (1.29) was obtained under 120 cm spaced triple row strip + mashbean and
minimum LER (1.09) was observed in maize at 60 cm spaced row + mungbean . Maximum maize seed yield
(6.7 t ha-1) and LER (1.62) was recorded in 90 cm spaced double row strips, maize + soybean intercropping
[101].
According to [102] compared planting combinations including common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.),
maize (Zea mays L.) or cowpea to determine system efficiency and reported that 67:50 plant densities for both
maize-common bean and maize-cowpea intercropping was found beneficial in terms of land use efficiency
owing to its better yield and monetary benefits compared to respective sole planting irrespective of planting
patterns. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) values were greater than one in all intercropping systems with different
planting ratios which indicated yield advantage of intercropping over sole cropping of maize [103].
According to [104] the maximum LER (1.89) in maize intercropped with cowpea and N at 225 kg ha -1
which was followed by maize intercropped with cowpea and N at 200 kg ha -1 (1.78). According to [105] LER
was greater than unity, implying that it will be more productive to intercrop maize-soybean than grow them in
monoculture.
A field study conducted in Nigeria revealed that LER for maize was above 1.0 in maize: cowpea mixture
proportion of 50M:50C and 60M:40C while it decreased when the maize was more than 60%. The intercropped
cowpea had higher relative crowding co-efficient (K) values than the intercropped maize. The K value for
cowpea increased when the proportion of cowpea in the intercrop mixture increased and the K value was higher
than 1 in mix-proportion of 100M:100C. Negative K values for maize were obtained in all intercropped
mixtures [106]. According to [107] the highest LER was obtained from cropping system of 75% maize + 25%
green gram with LER of 1.42.
The highest LER was obtained by sowing the crop in a ratio of intercrop of maize 50% + peanut 50% (2.30)
and the lowest LER was obtained by sowing the crops as intercrop of maize 25% + peanut 75% (1.27). LER values
were greater than one in all intercropping systems which indicated yield advantage of intercropping [107].
Among intercropping treatments, the higher LER and ATER (1.53 and 1.25, respectively) was noticed in
simultaneous sowing of maize + fodder cowpea (1:2) over all other intercropping treatments [108]. Higher
productivity, profitability and Monetary Advantage (MA) in maize/soybean intercropping system were positive, when
compared to monocropping [109]. This result is in agreement with [110] who reported higher yield and monetary
advantage index (MAI) for maize/soybean intercropping under a combined application of organic and inorganic
fertiliser.
According to [111] corn and soybean had higher relative yield when grown in intercrop than when grown as a
sole crop and the best relative yield total was at the 50:50 ratio of corn and soybean. According to [109] found that
the LER of intercropping was more than one in all nutrient management samples, indicating the yield advantage
of maize-soybean intercropping over monocropping. This result is supported by the scientist [112] who
explained that the greater LER could be attributed to the morphological differences of the two crops and the
optimal utilisation of resources.
4. Nitrogen transfer in cereal-legume intercropping systems:

The evidence for the direct transfer of N from the root system of a legume to that of an associated non-
legume via rhizo deposition or mycorrhizal connections is contradictory. Much of the evidence in its support has
come from research on mixed grass/legume swards, which persist in the field for much longer periods of time
and whose root systems are often more closely associated than in most intercropping systems [113]. This N-
transfer is considered to occur through root excretion, N leached from leaves, leaf fall, and animal excreta if present in
the system [114].
According to [115] there is little or no current N transfer in cereal-legume intercropping system. In addition,
[116] reported that benefits to associated non-leguminous crop in intercropping systems is influenced by
component crop densities, which determine the closeness of legume and non-legume crops, and legume growth
stages.
Despite claims for substantial N-transfer from grain legumes to the associated cereal crops, the evidence
indicate that benefits are limited [117]. Benefits are more likely to occur to subsequent crops as the main
transfer path-way is due to root and nodule senescence and fallen leaves [118].
According to many scientists [119], [120] & [121] there was evidence of direct transfer of fixed-N to cereal
component in many controlled studies. Similarly, the scientists [122] & [123] have reported that mineralization
of decomposing legumes in rhizosphere could enhance nitrogen availability to cereal crop. In intercropping
systems, when configurations of rows are wider then rate of nitrogen transfer is relatively low resulting lower
nitrogen fixation activity by legumes legumes [124]. For soil nitrogen, there exist competition and transfer from
legume to non-legume in intercropping system [125] sometimes there happen bi-directional nitrogen transfer
[126].
According to [127] the early stages of growth (4 and 6 WAP), N transfer by pigeon pea via below-ground
process was 0.39 % and 0.53 % respectively, while N released from litter return was 0.99 % and 0.90%,
respectively. During the same period N transfer due to interaction of above and below-ground processes was 0.15 %
and 0.14 %, respectively. At maturity (8 and 10 WAP), 0.60 % and 0.09 % of N were transferred from pigeon pea to
maize via below-ground process, while N released through litter return from pigeon pea leaf biomass was negative (-
0.08 % and - 0.12 %, respectively).
The results of 15N labeling showed that Glomus mosseae and rhizobium SH212 inoculation alone enhanced
the N transfer from soybean to maize in a soybean/maize intercropping system. The amount of N transferred
from soybean to maize (Nt) of SH212+ Glomus mosseae were 11.45 and 12.46 mg more than that of NI, and it
was also significantly more than SH212 or Glomus mosseae alone in mesh barrier and no barrier patterns
[128].
The study was 15N-aided and made outdoors in basins (30 L) filled with 38 kg of soil. The results reported
that in maize - based intercropping the proportion of N derived by maize from the associated legume varied
from 7-11% for mungbean, 11-20% for cowpea and 12–26% for groundnut which amounted to about 19-22, 29-
45 and 33-60 mg N maize plant–1, respectively [129] & [130].
5. Residual effects of cereal-legume cropping system:

The intercrop legume may accrue N to the soil and this may not become available until after the growing
season, improving soil fertility to benefit a subsequent crop [131].
According to [132] intercropping of cowpea with millet may enhance millet grain yields by 30 percent
above the control. According to People and Herridge (1990) to maximize the contribution of legume N to a
following crop, it is necessary to maximize total amount of N in legume crop, the proportion of N derived from
N2 fixation, the proportion of legume N mineralized and the efficiency of utilization of this mineral N.
According to [133] sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea), tephrosia (Tephrosia vogelii) and velvet bean (Mucuna
pruriens) green manure often resulted in maize yields of 3-6 t ha-1 even with no addition of mineral N fertilizer.
Moreover, Chibudu (1998) found that maize yields were increased by about 25 % and 88 % after maize-mucuna
and maize-cowpea intercropping stems, respectively.
According to the scientist [134] maize yields were increased by about 244 % after maize-Seing system.
They found that maize grain yield was 28 % higher one year of soybean and 21 % higher after one year of
cowpea than in the continuously cropped maize. Maize grain yield was 85 % higher after two years of soybean,
and 66 % higher after two years of cowpea than in the continuously cropped maize.
According to [135] over 4 consecutive cropping seasons, grain yields of maize increased by 340 % in
gliricidia-maize intercropping, when compared to unfertilizednole maize. Unfortunately, it is not always
possible to optimize these factors. Beans with phosphorus fertilization increased grain yield of succeeding wheat
by 20% over sorghum [136]. Soybean increased the grain yield of the following wheat by 44.9% in the non N-
fertilized and 14.5-14.7% in the N-fertilized treatment [137]. Furthermore, the scientist [138] found that maize
grain yield was 46 % significantly higher when grown after soybean than after maize and natural fallow.
According to [139] incorporating stover of Bambara nut, cowpea, groundnut, dry bean and soyabean gave
higher maize yields compared to plots where the stover was removed. Total maize dry matter yield increases of
1.30 t ha-1 to 5.19 ha-1 were recorded following legume stover incorporation compared to stover removal. Even
removal of stover of these same legumes gave significant maize yield increases compared to those from the maize
after maize or after fallow plots. The total maize dry matter yield was greater after legumes with stover removed
(ranging from 4.41 to 9.91 t ha-1) than after maize (2.16 to 2.26 t ha-1) or one season fallow (1.57 to 1.84 t ha-1).
The plant height, fresh forage yield, dry matter yield, crude protein content and yield of oats was
significantly higher owing to the previous Sesbania and cluster bean and least after millet [140]. Among
the different legumes (cowpea, Sesbania, mung bean and fallow plots) grown as preceding crops followed by
succeeding maize, the Sesbania grown plots had higher grain yield (5104 kg ha-1) followed by cowpea and
mung bean. Whereas the lower grain yield (3184 kg ha-1) was observed in Fallow plots [141].
From the foregoing review, information pertaining to intercropping of hybrid maize varies widely. In
maize, the effect of intercropping on growth and yield parameters, light transmission ratio, weed management,
nutrient uptake and nutrient transfer in intercropping system, evaluation of intercropping system and residual
effect on cereal-legume intercropping is well documented. Summarizing the review undertaken, it is understood
that the potential productivity of hybrid maize could be achieved when it is grown under intercropping situations
with varied crop management practices and it improves soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation with
the use of legumes. In this context, the present investigation would pave way to improve the productivity of
maize under intercropping system in order to get higher profit under irrigated condition.
REFERENCES
[1] USDA, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture. Foreign Agricultural Service. Circular series WAP
13-05. www.fas.usda.gov/wap/current/
[2] Season and crop report of Tamil Nadu, 2014-15. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Chennai- 600
006.
[3] FAO, 2006. Maize: international market profile. Grains team food and agriculture organization of the
United Nations economic and social department trade and markets
division.[http://www.fao.org/es/esc/common/ecg/54/en/MaizeProfile.pdf].
[4] FAO, 2011. Missing food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan
Africa.[http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/MissingFoods10_web.pdf]
[5] Geiler, K.E, J. Omesher and F.M. Awa, 1991. Nitrogen transfer from Phaseolus bean to intercropping
maize measured using 15-N enrichment and 15-N isotope dilution methods. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 23: 239-246
[6] Hirpa, T., 2014. Response of maize crop to spatial arrangement and staggered interseeding of haricot bean.
International Journal of Environment, 3: 126-138.
[7] Ijoyah, M.O and J. Jimba, 2012. Evaluation of yield and yield components of maize
(Zea mays L.) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench) intercropping System. Journal of
Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 2(2): 38-44.
[8] Odedina, J.N, T.O, Fabunmi, S.O. Adigbo, S.A. Odedina and R.O. Kolawole, 2014. Evaluation of cowpea
varieties (Vigna unguiculata, L Walp) for intercropping with okra (Abelmoschus esculenta, L Moench).
Journal of Research Communication, 2(2): 91-108.
[9] Susan, A.J and C. Mini, 2005. Biological efficiency of intercropping in okra
(Abelmoschus esculentus, L. Moench), Journal of Tropical Agriculture,
43(1-2): 33-36.
[10] Okpara, D.A, A.N. Awurum and A.I. Okeke, 2004. Effect of planting schedule and density on
cowpea/maize intercropping in south eastern Nigeria. Journal of Tropical Agricultural Research, 11: 59-
67.
[11] Bhatti, I.H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, M. Nadeem, M.M. Khan and S.N. Vains, 2013. Agronomic
performance of mash bean as an intercrop in sesame under different planting patterns. Emirates Journal of
Food and Agriculture, 25: 52-57.
[12] Muoneke C.O. and J.E. Asiegbu, 1997. Effect of okra planting density and spatial arrangement in intercrop
with maize on the growth and yield of the component species. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,
179: 201-207.
[13] Sanginga, N. and P. L. Woomer, 2009. Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: Principles, Practices
and Development Process. (Eds.). Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre
for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. pp: 263.
[14] Addo-Quaye, A.A., A.A. Darkwa and G.K. Ocloo, 2011. Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize-
soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences, 6(9): 50-57.
[15] Akande, M.O., F.I. Oluwatoyinbo, C.O. Kayode and F.A. Olowokere, 2006. Response of maize (Zea
mays) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) intercrop relayed with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) to different
levels of cow dung amended phosphate rock. World Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 2(1): 119-122.
[16] Mohammed, M.A., K. Vaiyapuri, A. Alagesan, E. Somasundaram, K. Sathyamoorthy and S. Pazhanivelan,
2006. Effect of intercropping and organic manures on yield and biological efficiency of cassava
intercropping system (Manihot esculenta, crantz). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science,
2(5): 201-208.
[17] Gomez, A.A. and K.A. Gomez, 1983. Multiple Cropping in the Humid Tropics of Asia, IDRC Ottawa,
Canada, p. 248 (Palaniappan, P. and Sivaraman, K. Ed.).
In: Cropping Systems in the Tropics- Principles and Management 2nd Edition. New Age International (P)
Ltd. Publishers, New Delhi.
[18] Willey, R.W., M. Natarajan, M.S. Reddy and M.R. Rao, 1986. Cropping systems with groundnut, resource
use and productivity. In : Agro-meteorology of Groundnuts, Proc. of and Int. Symp., ICRISAT, Sahelian
Centre, 21-26 August, 1985, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
[19] Sharma, R.S. and S.D. Choubey, 1991. Effect of maize legume intercropping systems on nitrogen
economy and nutrient status of soil. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 9(3): 36: 60-63.
[20] Sarkar, R.K., D. Shit and A. Chakraborthy, 1995. Yield and economics of pigeonpea based intercropping
system on rainfed upland of Chotanagpur plateau. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40: 30-34.
[21] Ahlawat, I.P.S., and B.G. Shivkumar, 2005. Kharif Pulses: In Text book of field crops production. Dr. Rajendra
Prasad (eds.) Indian Council of Agriculture research, New Delhi, India.
[22] Ullah, A., M.B. Ashraf, Z.A. Gurmani and M. Imran, 2007. Studies on planting patterns of maize (Zea
mays L.). Facilitating legumes intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Research, 45(2): 113-118.
[23] Marer, S.B., B.S. Lingaraju and G.B. Shashidhara, 2007. Productivity and economics of maize and
pigeonpea intercropping under rainfed condition in northern transitional zone of Karnataka. Karnataka
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 20(1): 1-3.
[24] Esmaeili, A., A. Sadeghpour, S.M.B. Hosseini, E. Jahanzad, M.R. Chaichi, and M. Hashemi, 2011.
Evaluation of seed yield and competition indices for intercropped barley (Hordeum vulgare) and annual
medic (Medicago scutellata). International Journal of Plant Production, 5: 395-404.
[25] Sadeghpour, A. and E. Jahanzad, 2012. Seed yield and yield components of intercropped barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) and annual medic (Medicago scutellata L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 3:
47-50.
[26] Smith, H.A. and R. McSorley, 2000. Intercropping and pest management: a review of major concepts.
American Entomologist, 46: 154-161.
[27] Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizaw and W. Sinebo, 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and
faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 25: 202-207.
[28] Dhima, K.V., I.B. Vasilakoglou, I.G. Eleftherohorinos and A.S. Lithourgidis, 2006. Allelopathic potential
of winter cereals and their cover crop mulch effect on grass weed suppression and corn development. Crop
Science, 46: 345-352.
[29] Waktola, S.K., 2014. Intercropping soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) at different population densities with
maize (Zea mays L.) on yield component, yield and system productivity at Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia. Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, 1: 121-127.
[30] Sakthivel, N., S. Radhamani, A. Balasubramanian and P. Subbian, 2003. Comparative performance of
different maize based intercropping systems and planting patterns under rainfed situation. Madras
Agricultural Journal, 90(7-9): 416-420.
[31] Iqbal, A., M. Ayub, N. Akbar and R. Ahmad, 2006. Growth and forage yield response of maize-legume
mixed cropping to different sowing techniques. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 43(3-4): 126-
130.
[32] Dawo, M.I, J.M. Wilkinson and D.J. Pilbeam, 2009. Interactions between plants in intercropped maize and
common bean. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture, 89: 41-48.
[33] Rehman, H.U., A. Asghar, M. Waseem, A. Tanveer, M. Tahir, M.A. Nadeem and M.S.I. Zahir, 2010.
Impact of nitrogen application on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) grown alone and in
combination with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). American Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences, 7(1): 43-47.
[34] Hassan, Z.A., H.A. Mezori and M.M.S. Duhoky, 2011. Intercropping treatments and nitrogen fertilizer
affects growth and quality characteristics of corn and peanut. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 27(1): 9-15.
[35] Borghi, E., C.A.C. Crusciol, A.S. Nascente, G.P. Mateus, P.O. Martins and C. Costa, 2013. Effects of row
spacing and intercrop on maize grain yield and forage production of palisade grass. Crop and Pasture
Sciences, 63(12): 1106-1113.
[36] Onwuchekwa-Henry, C.B. and C.O. Muoneke, 2016. Effect of intercropping and poultry manure rates on
the growth and yield of maize and okra. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(4): 28-36.
[37] Jernyama, P., O.B. Hesterman, S.R. Waddington and R.R. Harwood, 2000. Relay-intercropping of
sunhemp and cowpea into a smallholder maize system in Zimbabwe. Agronomy Journal, 92: 239-244.
[38] Ahmad, G., Z. Quresh, S.D. Khan and A. Iqbal, 2001. Study on the intercropping of soybean with maize. Sarhad
Journal of Agriculture, 17(2): 235-238.
[39] Shivay, Y.S., R.P. Singh and P. Madan, 2001. Productivity and economics of maize as influenced by
intercropping with legumes and nitrogen levels. Annals of Agricultural Research Series., 22(4): 576-582.
[40] Ranbir Singh, R., Bhupinder Singh and S.C. Negi, 2001. Studies on intercropping of legumes with maize
at varying levels of NPK to legume component. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 35(2): 100-103.
[41] Kalyan Singh, U.N., R.S. Singh, Chandel and K.K. Singh, 2004. Effect of intercropping in maize and life
saving irrigation in garden pea on yield and nutrient uptake by maize garden pea cropping system. Crop
Research, 28(1): 28-33.
[42] hwala, M.G. and E.M. Ossom, 2004. Legume-maize interaction influences crop characteristics and yield.
Australian society of agronomy. "New directions for a diverse planet". Edited by R.A. Fischer.
Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress. Brisbane, Australia, 26 September - 1
October.
[43] Randhawa, M.A., N. Mahmood, M.A. Javed and M.U. Ghazanafar, 2005. Studies into legumes as
intercrop on the growth and yield of maize grown in different geometrical patterns. Journal of Animal and
Plant Sciences., 15(1-2): 33-34.
[44] Yilmaz, S., M. Atak, M. Erayman. 2007. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over
solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean Region. Turkian Journal of
Agriculture, 16: 217-228.
[45] Alom, M.S., N.K. Paul and M.A. Quayyum, 2010. Performances of different hybrid maize (Zea mays L.)
varieties under intercropping systems with groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Bangladesh Journal of
Agricultural Research, 34(4): 585-595.
[46] Takim, F.O., 2012. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition
indices. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research, 1(4): 53-59.
[47] Dahmardeh, M., 2013. Intercropping two varieties of maize (Zea mays L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea
L.): biomass yield and intercropping advantages. International Journal of Agriculture and Forests, 3(1): 7-
11.
[48] Iremiren, G.O., R.R. Ipinmoroti and O.S.O. Akanbi, 2013. Performance of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus
L) and maize (Zea mays) under okra/maize intercrop as influenced by nutrient sources at Ibadan, Nigeria.
International Journal of Plant and Soil Sciences, 2(2): 190-201.
[49] Muturi, E.W., A.M. Opiyo and J.N. Aguyoh, 2016. Economic efficiency of green maize intercropped with
beans grown under Tithonia and inorganic fertilizer, 11(18): 1638-1645.
[50] Sudarshan Reddy, A and Y.B. Palled, 2016. Effect of intercropped fodder cowpea on maize and system
productivity in maize + fodder cowpea intercropping systems. Journal of Farm Science, 29(2): 265-267.
[51] Ashoka, P., T.K. Prabhakara Shetty, M.T. Sanjay and C.M. Sunil, 2013. Effect of crop geometry and
intercropping system on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.).
Research on Crops, 14(2): 431-435.
[52] Ahmaed, M.E.N., A.K. Baballa, E.H. Ali and F.A. Mahmoud, 2013. Agronomic evaluation of sorghum
and cowpea intercropped at different spatial arrangements. Journal of Renewable Agriculture, 1(2): 11-16.
[53] Almaz, M.G., R.A. Halim and M.Y. Martini, 2017. Effect of combined application of poultry manure and
inorganic fertiliser on yield and yield components of maize intercropped with soybean. Pertanika Journal
of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 40(1): 173-184.
[54] Waktola, S.K., 2014. Intercropping soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) at different population densities with
maize (Zea mays L.) on yield component, yield and system productivity at Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia. Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, 1: 121-127.
[55] Behairy, T.G., 1994. Effect of intercropping patterns on soybean growth and photosynthetic apparatus.
Egyptian Journal of Physiological Sciences, pp: 167-178.
[56] Sharma, R.S., K.K. Agarwal and K.K. Jain, 1994. Influence of spatial arrangement and nitrogen levels on
light utilization and productivity in maize-soybean intercropping system. Journal of Oilseeds Research,
11(2): 217-221.
[57] Arya, R.L. and K.P. Niranjan, 1995. Productivity of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) as affected by legume
intercropping under different fertility systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 65: 175-177.
[58] Keating, B. and P. Carberry, 1993. Resource capture and use in intercropping: Solar radiation. Field Crops
Research, 34: 273-301.
[59] Tsubo, M., S. Walker and E. Mukhala, 2001. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-/inter-
cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research, 71(1): 17-29.
[60] Tsubo, M. and S. Walker, 2003. Shade effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. intercropped with Zea mays L.
under well-watered conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science., 190: 168-176.
[61] Prasad, R.B. and R.M. Brook, 2005. Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean
in nepal. Experimental Agriculture, 41: 365-382.
[62] Eskandari, H. and A. Ghanbari. 2009. Intercroppingof maize (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis) as
whole-crop forage: effect of different planting pattern on total dry matter production and maize forage
quality. Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 37(2): 152-155.
[63] Keating, B. and P. Carberry, 1993. Resource capture and use in intercropping: Solar radiation. Field Crops
Research, 34: 273-301.
[64] Seran, T.H. and I. Brintha, 2010. Review on maize based intercropping. Journal of Agronomy, 9 (3): 135-
145.
[65] Mucheru-Muna, M., P. Pypers, D. Mugendi, J. Kung’u, J. Mugwe, R. Merckx and B. Vanlauwe, 2010.
Staggered maize–legume intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields and economic returns in the
highlands of Central Kenya. Field Crops Research, 115: 132-139.
[66] Choudhary, V.K., P .Suresh Kumar and R. Bhagawati, 2012. Production potential, soil moisture and
temperature as influenced by maize- legume intercropping. International Journal of Science and Nature,
3(1): 41-46.
[67] Eskandari, H., 2012. Intercropping of maize (Zea mays) with cowpea (Vigna sinensis) and mungbean
(Vigna radiata): Effect of complementarity of intercrop components on resource consumption, dry matter
production and legumes forage quality. Basic and Applied Science Research, 2(1): 355-360.
[69] Anders, M.M., M.V. Potdar and C.A. Francis, 1996. The significance of Intercropping in cropping
systems. In: Ito, O., Johansen, C., Adu-Gyamfi, J.J., Katayama, K., Kumar, J.V.D., Rao, K. and Rego, T.J.
(Eds.). Dynamics of roots and nitrogen in cropping systems of the semi-arid tropics. Japan International
Research Center for Agricultural Sciences. International Agricultural Series No. 3 Ohwashi, Tsukuba,
Ibavaki 305, Japan.
[70] Fujita, K. and K.G. Ofosu-Budu, 1996. Significance of Intercropping in Cropping Systems. pp. 19-40. In:
O. Ito, C. Johansen, J. J. Adu-Gyamfi, K. Katayama, J. V. D. K. Kumar Rao and T. J. Rego (Eds.).
Dynamics of Roots and Nitrogen in Cropping Systems of the Semi-Arid Tropics. Japan International
Ibavaki 305, Japan.
[71] Rao, I.M., V. Borrero, J. Ricaurte and R. Garcia, 1999. Adaptive attributes of tropical forage species to acid
soils. V. Differences in phosphorus acquisition from less available inorganic and organic sources of phosphate.
Plant Nutrition, 22: 1175-1196.
[72] Li, L., C. Tang, Z. Rengel and F.S. Zhang, 2002b. Chickpea facilitates phosphorous uptake by
intercropped wheat from an organic phosphorus source. Plant and Soil, 248: 297-303.
[73] Li, L., J.H. Sun, F.S. Zhang, X.L. Li S.C Yang and Z. Rengel, 2001a. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip
intercropping. I. Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crops Research, 71:
123-137.
[74] Rubapathi, K., A. Rangasamy and C. Chinnuswamy, 2004. Nutrient uptake pattern of sorghum and
redgram influenced by sorghum based intercropping system in rainfed Vertisols. Journal of Ecobiology.,
16(2): 137-141.
[75] Singh, D.K. and R.L Agrawal, 2004. Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition of pearl millet (Pennisetum
glaucum) grown in sole and intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy,
49(3): 151-153.
[76] Adhikari, S., T. Chakraborty and D.K. Bagchi, 2005. Bio-economic evaluation of maize
(Zea mays) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) intercropping in drought prone areas of Chatanagpur plateau region
of Jarkhand. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 50(2): 113-115.
[77] Vesterager, J.M., N.E. Nielsen and H. Høgh-Jensen, 2008. Effect of cropping history and phosphorous
source on yield and nitrogen fixation in sole and intercropped cowpea-maize systems. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 80: 61-73.
[78] Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B.A. Syahsar and M. Ramrodi, 2010. The role of intercropping maize (Zea
mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on yield and soil chemical properties. African Journal of
[79] Mucheru-Muna, M., P. Pypers, D. Mugendi, J. Kung’u, J. Mugwe, R. Merckx and B. Vanlauwe, 2010.
Staggered maize–legume intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields and economic returns in the
highlands of Central Kenya. Field Crops Research, 115: 132-139.
[80] Chalka, M.K and V. Nepalia, 2006. Nutrient uptake appraisal of maize intercropped with legumes and
associated weeds under the influenced of weed control. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 40(2): 86
- 91.
[81] Owusu, A. and A. Sadick, 2016. Assessment of soil nutrients under maize intercropping system involving
soybean. International Research Journal of Agricultural and Food Sciences, 1(3): 33-43.
[82] Sanginga, N. and P. L. Woomer, 2009. Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: Principles, Practices
and Development Process. (Eds.). Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre
for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. pp: 263.
[83] Owusu, A and A. Sadick, 2016. Assessment of soil nutrients under maize intercropping system involving
soybean. International Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, (3): 33-43.
[84] Khan, Z.R., A. Hassanali, W. Overholt, T.M. Khamis, A.M. Hooper, J.A Pickett, L.J. Wadhams, and C.M.
Woodcock, 2002. Control of witch weed Striga hermonthica by intercropping with Desmodium spp. and
the mechanism defined as allelopathic. Journal of Chemicals and Ecology, 28: (9).
[85] Musambasi, D., O.A. Chivinge, and I.K. Mariga, 2002. Intercropping Maize with Grain Legumes for
Striga Control in Zimbabwe. African Crop Science Journal, 10(2): 163-171.
[86] Mashingaidze, A.B., 2004. Improving weed management and crop productivity in maize systems in
Zimbabwe. Ph. D thesis, Wageningen University, p: 207.
[87] Chalka, M.K and V. Nepalia, 2006. Nutrient uptake appraisal of maize intercropped with legumes and
associated weeds under the influenced of weed control. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 40(2): 86
- 91.
[88] Hugar, H.Y. and Y.B. Palled, 2008. Effect of intercropped vegetables on maize and associated weeds in
maize-vegetable intercropping systems. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(2): 159-161.
[89] Shah, S.N., J.C. Shroff, R.H. Patel and V.P. Usadadiya, 2011. Influence of intercropping and weed
management practices on weed and yields of maize. International Journal of Science and Nature, 2(1): 47-
50.
[90] Khan, M.A., A.N. Khan, R. Khan, Umm-e-Kalsoom and M.A. Khan, 2011. Weed control efficiency of
intercropping legumes in maize. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science, 17(4): 303-312.
[91] Orluchukwu, J.A., and U.E. Udensi, 2013. The effect of intercropping pattern of okra, maize, pepper on weeds
infestations and okra yield. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(10): 896-902.
[92] Swetha, K., M. Madhavi, G. Pratibha and T. Ramprakash, 2015. Weed management with new generation
herbicides in maize. Indian Journal of Weed Science., 47(4): 432-433.
[93] Bibi, S and I. Ahmad Khan, 2016. Impact of weed control techniques on intercropping of mungbean with
maize under agro climate condition of Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 32(2): 62-69.
[94] Willey, R.W., 1985. Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture,
21: 119-113.
[95] Dhima, K.V., A.A. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou and C.A. Dordas, 2007. Competition indices of
common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crop Research, 100: 249-256.
[96] Amanullah, M., K. Vaiyapuri and A. Alagesan, 2006. Effect of intercropping and organic manures on the
yield and biological efficiency of cassava intercropping system (Manihot esculenta Crantz.). Research
Journal on Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 2(5): 201-208.
[97] Sarkar, R.M. and D. Shit, 1990. Effect of intercropping cereals, pulses and oilseeds with maize on
production competition and advantage. Indian Agriculture, 34: 88-89.
[98] Quiroz, A.I. and D. Marin, 2003. Grain yield and efficiency of a maize- pigeonpea intercropping system
with and without fertilization. Bioagrology, 15: 121-128.
[99] Tsubo, M., S. Mukhala, H.P. Ogindo and S. Walker, 2003. Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a
semi-arid region of South Africa, Water-SA., 29(4): 381-388.
[100] Ullah. A., M.B. Ashraf, Z.A. Gurmani and M. Imran, 2007. Studies on planting patterns of maize (Zea
mays L.). Facilitating legumes intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Research, 45(2): 113-118.
[101] Saban, Y., M. Atak and M. Erayman, 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping
over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean Region. Turkian Journal of
Agriculture, 32: 111-119.
[102] Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B.A. Syahsar and M. Ramrodi, 2010. The role of intercropping maize (Zea
mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on yield and soil chemical properties. African Journal of
[103] Rehman, H.U., A. Asghar, M. Waseem, A. Tanveer, M. Tahir, M.A. Nadeem and M.S.I. Zahir, 2010.
Impact of nitrogen application on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) grown alone and in
combination with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). American Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences, 7(1): 43-47.
[104] Addo-Quaye, A.A., A.A. Darkwa and G.K. Ocloo, 2011. Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize-
soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences, 6(9): 50-57.
[105] Takim, F.O., 2012. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition
indices. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research, 1(4): 53-59.
[106] Dahmardeh, M., 2013. Intercropping two varieties of maize (Zea mays L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea
L.): biomass yield and intercropping advantages. International Journal of Agriculture and Forests, 3(1): 7-
11.
[108] Almaz, M.G., R.A. Halim and M.Y. Martini, 2017. Effect of combined application of poultry manure and
inorganic fertiliser on yield and yield components of maize intercropped with soybean. Pertanika Journal
of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, 40(1): 173-184.
[109] Muyayabantu, G.M., B.D. Kadiata and K.K. Nkongolo, 2013. Assessing the effects of integrated soil
fertility management on biological efficiency and economic advantages of intercropped maize (Zea Mays
L.) and soybean (Glycine Max L.) in DR Congo. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3(3):
520-541.
[110] Baghdadi, A., R.A. Halim, R. Othman, M.M. Yusof and A.R.M. Atashgahi, 2016. Productivity, relative
yield and plant growth of forage corn intercropped with soybean under different crop combination ratio.
Legume Research, 39 (4): 558-564.
[111] Shaker-Koohi, S., S. Nasrollahzadeh and Y. Raei, 2014. Evaluation of chlorophyll value, protein content
and yield of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) /mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) intercropping. International
Journal of Biosciences, 4(8): 136-143.
[112] Fujita, K. and K.G. Ofosu-Budu, 1996. Significance of Intercropping in Cropping Systems. pp. 19-40. In:
Ibavaki 305, Japan.
[113] Giller, K.E., J. Ormesher and F.M. Awah, 1991. Nitrogen transfer from Phaseolus bean to intercropped
maize measured using 15N-enrichment and 15N-isotope dilution methods. Soil Biology Biochemistry, 23:
339-346.
[114] Danso, S.K.A., G. Hardarson and F. Zapata, 1993. Misconceptions and practical problems in the use of the
15Nsoil enrichment techniques for estimating N fixation. Plant and Soil., 152: 25-52.
[115] Fujita, K. and K.G. Ofosu-Budu, 1996. Significance of Intercropping in Cropping Systems. pp: 19-40. In:
Ibavaki 305, Japan.
[116] Giller, K.E., J. Ormesher and F.M. Awah, 1991. Nitrogen transfer from Phaseolus bean to intercropped
maize measured using 15N-enrichment and 15N-isotope dilution methods. Soil Biology Biochemistry, 23:
339-346.
[117] Ledgard, S.J. and K.E. Giller, 1995. Atmospheric N2-fixation as alternative nitrogen source. In: Bacon, P.
(Ed.) Nitrogen Fertilization and the Environment. Marcel Dekker, NewYork. pp: 443-486.
[118] Chu, G.X., Q. R. Shen, and J. L. Cao, 2004. Nitrogen fixation and N transfer from peanut to rice cultivated
in aerobic soil in an intercropping system and its effect on soil fertility. Plant and Soil., 263: 17-27.
[119] Høgh-Jensen, H. and J.K. Schjoerring, 2000. Below-ground nitrogen transfer between different grassland
species: Direct quantification by 15N. Plant and Soil., 227: 171-183.
[120] Frey, B. and H. Schüepp, 1993. A role of vesicular-arbuscular (VA) mycorrhizal fungi in facilitating
interplant nitrogen transfer. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 25: 651-658.
[121] Evans J, A., M. Mcneill, M J. Unkovich, N.A. Fettell and D.P. Heenan, 2001. Net nitrogen balances for
cool-season grain legume crops and contributions to wheat nitrogen uptake: a review. Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture, 41: 347-359.
[122] Schroth, G., D. Kolbe, P. Balle and W. Zech, 1995. Searching for criteria for the selection of efficient tree
species for fallow improvement, with special reference to carbon and nitrogen. Fertilizer Research, 42:
297-314.
[123] Hardason, G. and G. Atkins, 2003. Optimizing biological N2 fixation by legumes in farming systems.
Plant and Soil., 252: 41-54.
[124] Xiao, Y.B., L. Li and F.S. Zhang, 2004. Effect of root contact on interspecific competition and N transfer
between wheat and fababean using direct and indirect 15N techniques. Plant and Soil., 262: 45-54.
[125] Shen, Q.R. and G.X. Chu, 2004. Bi-directional nitrogen transfer in an intercropping system of peanut with
rice cultivated in aerobic soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 40: 81-87.
[126] Olujobi, O.J. and M.B. Oyun, 2012. Nitrogen transfer from pigeon pea [Cajanus Cajan (L.) Misllp.] to
maize (Zea mays L.) in a pigeon pea /maize intercrop. American International Journal of Contemporary
Research, 11(2): 115-120.
[127] Meng, L, A. Zhang, F. Wang, X. Han, D. Wang and S. Li, 2015. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and
rhizobium facilitate nitrogen uptake and transfer in soybean/maize intercropping system. Frontier in Plant
Science, 6: 339.
[128] Senaratne, R., N. Liyanage and R.J. Soper, 1995. Nitrogen fixation of and N transfer from cowpea,
mungbean and groundnut when intercropped with maize. Nutrient Cycling in Agro ecosystems, 40(1): 41-
48.
[129] Garcia, C.M.P., C. Costa, P.R.L. Meirelles, M. Andreotti, C.M. Pariz, L.A. Freitas, M.C.M.T. Filho, 2016.
Wet and dry corn yield under intercrop culivation with marandu grass and/or dwarf pigeon pea and
nutritional value of the marandu grass in succession. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 10(11): 1564-
1571.
[130] Ledgard, S.J. and K.E. Giller, 1995. Atmospheric N2-fixation as alternative nitrogen source. In: Bacon, P.
(Ed.) Nitrogen Fertilization and the Environment. Marcel Dekker, NewYork. pp: 443-486.
[131] Bationo, A., M.P. Sedogo, A. Buerkert and E. Ayuk, 1995. Recent achievement on agronomic evaluation
of phosphorus fertilizer source and management in the West Africa semi-arid tropics. In: Ganry, F. and B.
Campbell,(Eds.), Sustainable land management and African semi-arid and sub-humid regions. Proceedings
of the SCOPE Workshop, 15-19. November 1993, Dakar, Senegal, CIRAD, Montpellier, France. pp: 99-
109.
[132] Kumwenda, J.D.T., A.R. Saka, S.S Snapp, R.P. Ganunga and T. Benson, 1998. Effects of organic legume
residues and inorganic fertilizer nitrogen on maize yield in Malawi. In: Waddington, S.R., H.K. Murwira,
J.D.T. Kumwenda, D. Hikwa and F. Tagwira, (Eds.) The soil fertility network for maize-based cropping
systems in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Proceeding of the Soil Fertility Network Results and Planning
Workshop Held from 7 to 11 July 1997 at Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe. Soil Fertility Network
and CIMMYT- Zimbabwe. pp: 165-171.
[133] Chibudu, C., 1998. Green manuring crops in a maize basedcommunal area, Magwende: Experiences using
participatory approaches. In: Waddington, S.R., H.K. Murwira, J.D.T. Kumwenda, D. Hikwa. and F.
Tagwira, (Eds.) The soil fertility network for maize-based cropping systems in Malawi and Zimbabwe.
Proceeding of the Soil Fertility Network Results and Planning Workshop Held from 7 to 11 July 1997 at
Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe. Soil Fertility Network and CIMMYT-Zimbabwe. pp: 87-90.
[134] Phiri, A.D.K., G.Y. Kanyana-Phiri, and S. Snapp, 1999. Maize and sesbania production in relay cropping
at three landscape positions in Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 47: 153-162.
[135] Kureh, I. and A.Y. Kamara, 2005. Effects of sole cropping, intercropping and rotation with legume trap-crops
on Striga control and maize grain yield in farmers’ fields in the Northern Guinea Savanna. In: Badu-Apraku, B.,
M.A.B. Fakorede, A.F. Lum, A. Menkir, and M. Ouedraogo (Eds.). Demand- Driven Technologies for
Sustainable Maize Production in West and Central Africa. Fifth Biennial West and Central Africa Regional
Maize Workshop, 3–6 May 2005, IITA- Bénin. pp: 169-179.
[136] Akinnifesi, F.K., W. Makumba, G. Sileshi, O.C. Ajayi and D. Mweta, 2007. Synergistic effect of inorganic N and
P fertilizers and organic inputs from Gliricidia sepium on productivity of intercropped maize in Southern Malawi.
Plant Soil, 294: 203-217.
[137] Hayat, R.S. M.T. Ali, Siddique and T.H. Chatha, 2008. Biological nitrogen fixation of summer legumes
and their residual effects on subsequent rainfed wheat yield. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 40(2): 711-722.
[138] Mohammad, W., Z. Shah, S.M. Shah and S. Shehzadi, 2008. Response of irrigated and N- fertilized wheat
to legume-cereal and cereal-cereal rotation. Soil and Environment, 27(2): 148-154.
[139] Yusuf, A.A., E.N.O. Iwuafor, O.O. Olufajo, R.C. Abaidoo and N. Sanginga, 2009. Effect of crop rotation
and nitrogen fertilization on yield and nitrogen efficiency in maize in the northern Guinea Savanna of
Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(10): 913-921.
[140] Oniward, S., M. Sheunesu and F. Makonese, 2010. Sustainability of maize-based cropping systems in rural
areas of Zimbabwe: an assessment of the residual soil fertility effects of grain legumes on maize (Zea
mays [L.]) under field conditions. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2(7): 141-
148.
[141] Qamar, I.A., M. Ahmad, G. Riaz and S. Khan, 2014. Performance of summer forage legumes and their
residual effect on subsequent oat crop in subtropical sub humid pothwar, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of
[142] Ali, W., A. Jan, A. Hassan, A. Abbas, A. Hussain, M. Ali, S.A. Zuhair, A. Hussain, 2015. Residual effect
of preceding legumes and nitrogen levels on subsequent maize. International Journal of Agriculture and

A Review On Maize-Legume Intercropping For Enhancing The Productivity and Soil Fertility For Sustainable Agriculture in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review On Maize-Legume Intercropping For Enhancing The Productivity and Soil Fertility For Sustainable Agriculture in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Environmental Biology, 11(5) May 2017, Pages: 49-63

Advances in Environmental Biology

Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/AEB/

A Review On Maize- Legume Intercropping For

Address For Correspondence:

2. Intercropping system and its importance:

3. Effect of intercropping on maize:

3.2. Yield and yield attributes:

3.3. Effect of intercropping on light interception/light transmission ratio:

3.4. Effect of intercropping on nutrient use efficiency:

3.5. Effect of intercropping on weed management:

3.6. Evaluation of intercropping systems:

4. Nitrogen transfer in cereal-legume intercropping systems:

5. Residual effects of cereal-legume cropping system:

You might also like